January 31, 2014 06:50 PM CSTJanuary 31, 2014 06:57 PM CSTEditorial: How to make the most of this opening on immigration reform

Editorial: How to make the most of this opening on immigration reform

1/1

Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

Protesters call for immigration reform at a rally in Washington, Oct. 8, 2013.

Published: 31 January 2014 06:50 PM

Updated: 31 January 2014 06:57 PM

Last week was an important one for the future of immigration reform. Tuesday, President Barack Obama made the issue a component of his State of the Union speech — and never mentioned the word comprehensive. Thursday, House Republicans opened their three-day retreat by unveiling a set of immigration principles that could set the foundation for legitimate immigration reform. Suddenly, there seems to be genuine momentum for a solution.

Of course, we’ve heard all this before. But this time, there seems to be a recognition by Republicans that the 11 million who operate outside our laws and institutions somehow need to be brought into the American fold. Democrats seem to be acknowledging that words such as comprehensive and citizenship are no longer sacrosanct.

Stunningly, these appear to be days of compromise. Obama’s omission of comprehensive on Tuesday seemed to signal a willingness by Democrats to abandon their demand that the four pillars of reform — a path to citizenship, border security, guest-worker program and employer sanctions — be enacted simultaneously. Likewise, when Rep. Pete Sessions and Sen. John Cornyn, both Texas Republicans, recently met with us, they did not rule out the possibility of a path to legalization.

This newspaper applauds the willingness of members of both parties to turn their focus to immigration reform. It is long overdue. But success depends on flexibility.

In that spirit of compromise, The News, too, is rethinking its insistence on comprehensive reform. We offer instead a step-by-step solution based on a four-part framework.

First: Congress should pass a pathway to citizenship for DREAM Act kids who were brought to this country by their parents without documentation. As Cornyn said recently, “There seems to be consensus that finding a way to regularize their status is the fair and just thing to do.”

Second: Legislators should simultaneously pass border security and a pathway to legalization. These two aspects of immigration reform are the most contentious, which is why simultaneous implementation is needed. Democrats will not pass a border security measure without a path to either citizenship or legalization. Republicans will not pass a path to anything without border security.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offered an idea of how that could happen: Undocumented immigrants would immediately be granted probationary legal status. There would then be a time frame for border security and workplace benchmarks to be reached. If those benchmarks are reached, those who are family of U.S. citizens or have employee sponsors could begin the path to citizenship. The plan has obvious pitfalls and areas of concern, but it’s a good starting point.

Third: Pass a guest-worker plan that addresses America’s need for both high-skill and low-skill foreign workers.

Fourth: Finally, improve and expand the E-Verify program and beef up employer sanctions.

Even with such a plan, immigration reform may be as long a shot as the Cowboys appearing in next year’s Super Bowl. But think of these days of compromise as early fall, when anything is possible, and you’ve just got to believe.

GOP immigration principles

House Republicans’ principles for immigration reform:

Undocumented immigrants can legally live and work in the country if they register with the federal government and admit culpability.

They must pass a criminal background check, pay significant fines and back taxes, learn English and civics, and prove an ability to support themselves financially.

Those who were brought as children “would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents” as long as they meet various conditions.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.